Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why am I not surprised?

414 replies

FatFucker · 09/01/2022 00:09

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382291/Did-Hertfordshire-Police-force-break-uniform-code-transgender-trailblazer.html

One rule for women and another for transgender women.

Having long green nails and heavy makeup, breaches Hertfordshire Police Forces uniform policy, unless of course you're trans! Then you can do what you like to "feel like a woman".

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
CheeseMmmm · 10/01/2022 02:07

Forces posting very ill judged pics of trans officers has happened before.

When they do that they are failing at least twofold-

  • Drawing very broad public attention to a trans individual, attention which ranges from critical, to personal, to nasty jokes, and more.

Criticism/insults/ piss taking which is written on v popular SM site and visible to a large audience. Also attention can spiral due to forwarding etc.

The possible negative public response and that it might spiral is surely obvious, for the images I've seen where this has happened.
Why the hell are they exposing one of their own to all that? Widespread internet FFS and laughter?

That's a really horrible thing to happen/ Be done to anyone.

  • Reduces confidence in that force/police in general.

People want the police to do their job.
Which so much of the time, esp certain types of crime/victim, esp in certain forces. THEY FAIL MASSIVELY.

Public don't want them fannying around on twitter posting about randoms let's be honest. Irrespective of whether trans or not. The phrase fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.

To me it's transparent, pathetic, it actually makes me angry. If I were paranoid I'd feel like it's a deliberate fuck you to the public, especially some groups.

OhLordyWhatNow · 10/01/2022 01:57

Nice summary Cheese.

Though I think you missed:

Obfuscation
Casual racism
Obsequiousness to TRA overlords, and
Cognitive dissonance.

And plenty of head shaking and wtf's from others trying to comprehend what the repeated drivel and weasel words actually meant

CheeseMmmm · 10/01/2022 01:41

Story of thread so far. Please correct if I make mistake!

In support of this officer nails makeup, main points I remember:

  • Everyone should be able to wear makeup nails etc or when they want to.
    That is for any job, no reason at all for rules.

  • The officer is probably trying to fit in.

  • Any criticism on nails etc for this individual is about transphobia, not about double standards.

  • TW can't win when comes to how they look- quote making the point:
    '"Don't wear make up.
    '' You look too much like a bloke!!''
    '' At least makes an effort -
    Stop appropriating womanhood! Who says you can wear makeup or nail varnish?!'

Plus more but think they the main ones pretty much.

Posters unhappy about makeup/nails:

  • Dress code for police, clear policy on makeup nails.
  • Individual in tweet is in beach of dress code.
  • How come this breach is not only allowed, but photos of individual with the nails makeup that breach dress code posted to the force's Twitter account ie general public audience.
CheeseMmmm · 10/01/2022 01:23

Maybe you've got long legs for your height OP!

Anyway yes a different thread IMO.

I can sum up where at on thread topic in a sec...

CheeseMmmm · 10/01/2022 01:22

@FatFucker

e recruits claimed that carrying the same heavy packs as males had also contributed to their injuries

So what did they expect the male soldiers to do? Carry their kit for them while they fluttered their eyelashes!

Plus it's the RAF for fuck sake, what kit do they carry?? Their butlers would carry most of it ;)

Flutter their eyelids and get the men to carry? That's pretty strong! Bit taken aback tbh, implication the women who complained were.. using their sex to try and get out of parts of their role?

The fractures were a fact though...

Yes maybe another thread! If you like. Feel free to start! Let me know if soSmile

OhLordyWhatNow · 10/01/2022 00:19

@FatFucker

I'm 5'5 my ex is 5'1.

The one at the front was prob about 5 foot, maybe a bit less.

Why do you ask?

I was trying to imagine the mix of strides. Knowing the actual heights involved has helped with that. 👍

FatFucker · 10/01/2022 00:02

I'm 5'5 my ex is 5'1.

The one at the front was prob about 5 foot, maybe a bit less.

Why do you ask?

OP posts:
OhLordyWhatNow · 09/01/2022 23:58

@FatFucker

cheese

Anyway good rules were changed.

No it wasn't!! It's fucking annoying!

I'm average height for a woman, my ex is about 4 inches smaller than me. We had no problems marching the same stride even with his little legs.

However when I left the military I joined the reserves several years later. As there was a large gap between when I left the regs to join the reserves, I had to do the recruits course again.

It was a fucking nightmare, they put the women at the front and let the tinniest one dictate the March pace.

So basically the taller men were literally running like the Light Infantry, even I was taking tiny little steps. And almost running when I was meant to be marching. I hated it and it looked shit!

So for one very tiny woman the rest of the squadron had to be put out. I'm a feminist but how the fuck is that fair?

I'm not convinced the women who said they had pelvis problems after marching were being 100% truthful.

However this is completely off topic but would make an interesting separate thread!

You're average height for a woman in the UK and you male ex was 4 inches shorter? So you're saying you're 5'4" and your ex was 5'?

How short was the short woman at the front?

FatFucker · 09/01/2022 23:48

e recruits claimed that carrying the same heavy packs as males had also contributed to their injuries

So what did they expect the male soldiers to do? Carry their kit for them while they fluttered their eyelashes!

Plus it's the RAF for fuck sake, what kit do they carry?? Their butlers would carry most of it ;)

OP posts:
FatFucker · 09/01/2022 23:42

cheese

Anyway good rules were changed.

No it wasn't!! It's fucking annoying!

I'm average height for a woman, my ex is about 4 inches smaller than me. We had no problems marching the same stride even with his little legs.

However when I left the military I joined the reserves several years later. As there was a large gap between when I left the regs to join the reserves, I had to do the recruits course again.

It was a fucking nightmare, they put the women at the front and let the tinniest one dictate the March pace.

So basically the taller men were literally running like the Light Infantry, even I was taking tiny little steps. And almost running when I was meant to be marching. I hated it and it looked shit!

So for one very tiny woman the rest of the squadron had to be put out. I'm a feminist but how the fuck is that fair?

I'm not convinced the women who said they had pelvis problems after marching were being 100% truthful.

However this is completely off topic but would make an interesting separate thread!

OP posts:
Waitwhat23 · 09/01/2022 23:36

Interesting about the army equipment, Cheese. There seems to have been some controversy with equipment trialled by the MOD two years ago which caused lower limb injuries to females. They appear to be currently redesigning the gear (Virtus).

ScrollingLeaves · 09/01/2022 23:36

“NoNotMeNoSiree

nocoolnamesleft
It's that actual women would not be allowed to wear them in the same situation.
OK, I get that, but as a female who isn't trans, I can do my usual self of going out every day without makeup and painted nails (which I do every single day, can't remember the last time I wore either) and nobody cares.
If you're trans though, that's my point - you maybe feel like you have to fit in.
As in whatever you're going to do with your appearance, there'll be someone, somewhere judging and gossiping about your looks“

She isn’t wearing makeup and nail varnish of an appropriate kind for the job though. To fit in she could wear makeup, but not like that - like other police women.

CheeseMmmm · 09/01/2022 23:25

This is a big digression but anyway found article, Google has plenty medical papers and things as well if interested.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544

'The MoD said the RAF had now reviewed its recruit training practices to reduce the risk.

The women told the Mail on Sunday they had extended their strides to 30in (76cm) over several weeks while undergoing basic training.

RAF official policy now states female recruits should not be expected to extend the length of their strides beyond 27in (69cm).

The paper reported that lawyers for one of the recruits claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had accused the three of exaggerating their symptoms during the five-year legal battle.

As well as marching in step with male colleagues at RAF Halton, in Buckinghamshire, the recruits claimed that carrying the same heavy packs as males had also contributed to their injuries, the paper reported.'

Love the claimed! Assume because wasn't in the claim brought, so not proven HOWEVER they won, stride rule came in for women, it's pretty bleeding obvious heavy load would make it worse!

Anyway good rules were changed.

CheeseMmmm · 09/01/2022 23:19

Wait, exact same problems with army kit.

In army read one that's just something would never even cross mind, at least to me anyway!

It was about marching and in group organised marching in line you know the style.

I think it was when had rucksack with heavy stuff esp, can't remember if even when not carrying that.

Anyway the stride length in order to keep neat and in lines etc was longer than general natural stride range for women unless pretty tall.

The result was they found women getting load of hairline fractures in hips I think it was.

Not sure if/what done about it.

Iirc the standard backpacks also totally wrong for women bodies so ill fitting which we all know comes with a host of issues. Not least being much less effective in making easier as load across body not just shoulders etc.

Interesting stuff.

CheeseMmmm · 09/01/2022 23:06

@NoNotMeNoSiree

I don't assume on threads with two points of view, that an individual post content is what anyone else thinks unless they say something indicating they do Neither do I, I don't think that everyone thinks that way for a minute. As we're all different. I was just saying it really isn't just about a concern for dress codes, is it. Posts like that show there's more to it than that.
The first and second bit of that very short post are entirely contradictory.

I can only know my reasons for huge concern that human sex is, essentially already in England Scotland Wales (not so up to date NI) not at all important any more. *

And gender ID should be (mostly already in) the basis for anything and everything across the board, where there are two groups that have different body configurations to each other at a global level, different risks etc.

I know why I think that. I am aware that plenty of other reasons people have for being unhappy with gender ideology in general. And that some reasons are to do with things that I personally think are shitty.

For example males who are just uncomfortable with gender non conforming males being around the place.

Your understanding is that when a poster or poster says on here it's not about transphobia, it's about double standards.

You take that to be stating that they don't mean themselves or the bunch of posters on this thread who also say that.

They mean that's what it's about for everyone from anywhere who has issues with the nails etc?

That's a very unusual understanding.
I'd be really interested why you took it that way tbh.

* I've read sex irrelevant apart from health care. And in healthcare plenty people have eg prostate removed cancer, so using male is reductive. People with prostates should be used for maximum clarity. Having health records list parts and gender ID I've seen proposed a good few times.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 09/01/2022 23:05

No need to apologise, Wait! That is stuff we need to talk about, and it was all extremely relevant.

RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · 09/01/2022 23:00

Very interesting though wait 🙂

Waitwhat23 · 09/01/2022 22:57

Apologies, I hadn't realised how long that would come out - the formatting has gone a bit haywire!

Waitwhat23 · 09/01/2022 22:56

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

There was/is a problem with stab vests being designed purely to fit the male form and therefore not fitting and not protecting females as they should

Yes they were too short if I remember correctly

As the stab vests are made for the default male, they simply don't fit women properly at all. I found some interesting details in the 'Personal protective equipment and women' - TUC report (2017) -

'Police body armour

Body armour issued to women police
officers is a major concern. This is despite
regular complaints being made over the
past 20 years. In 1997 a women police
officer was stabbed and killed while using a hydraulic ram to enter a flat. She had
removed her body armour because it was
too difficult to use the ram while wearing it. Two years later a woman police officer
disclosed she had to have breast reduction
surgery because of the health effects of
wearing her body armour. After the case
was reported another 700 officers in the
same force came forward to complain about the vest. Over 20 years after complaints were first made, women officers are still reporting problems. This is a selection of complaints received:

“For a long time our uniform has never fitted correctly as we appear to have
hips and breasts. Who would’ve
thought? My vest is doubled as a hand
warmer during the cold months as the
breast area padding is so roomy. The
actual vest sits on my kit belt which in
turn bruises my hips, especially when
standing for long periods of time on an
operation. I cannot be alone in this.”

“I have had similar issues with my stab
vest. I have been having regular sports
massages due to problems with my
back and IT band in my leg. I am told
by my physio that my stab vest and kit
belt is the main culprits due to the way
pull on the shoulders and the vest
pushes down the belt. My stab vest also sits on my belt causing the belt to
rub uncomfortably making my hips
sore and often bruised after a long
shift.”

“I’ve actually had physio due to the
issues with my stab vest sadly. I took
my stab vest in to show them and they
were horrified and felt they are terrible
for posture. I get sore hips where the
belt and equipment rub, leaving red
marks. I don’t have the joy of the vest
being roomy, in fact, mine makes me
feel incredibly squashed in the chest
area even though it is shaped. They
seem to be one size fits all in the chest
which clearly isn’t the case!”

“My stab vest usually chokes me when
sitting in the Police vehicle. It rides up
to my chin. Yes the stab vest only acts
as sweat box in the summer and a
heater in the winter. As far as being
something to protect me against a
knife, there are plenty of areas
accessible to anyone who wanted to do
serious harm. It sits on my chest,
meaning I can fit my hand up through
the bottom of the vest. I find that, as a
result, it doesn’t distribute the weight
evenly, giving me back pain if I have to
stand for long periods of time. It also
comes up far too short. All I can truly
say is that, I have suffered aches on my
torso and back area from stab vests
and more than likely due to the fact
that I am not flat chested and also have
had children and therefore my body
has been probably affected by child
bearing. I certainly agree that when we
wear such heavy and needed PPE that
it should be properly fitted and suitable
to individuals if not at least suitable for
the female body shape.”

“My vest is all loose above the breast
area and towards the shoulder, so
loose it sometimes bows out! The vest
also has large areas uncovered
underneath my arms as it sits quite low
and butts up against my tack belt and
equipment. It also infuriates me that
the epaulettes made for stab vests are
so big. Mine have to be folded under
on the button side which is very
uncomfortable. If this is not done I
have two large ‘handles’ by which to
grab my vest and therefore…me!”

“I would describe my stab vest as
similar to a crop top. It is not designed
to fit my breasts and despite numerous
attempts to adjust it to fit it still
doesn’t. There is no side protection at
all and the gap left at the top above my
breasts is large enough to fit another
pair of breasts. When I sit in the car or
on a chair the stab vest rises up and I
end up looking like I’m wearing a
tortoise shell. This leaves both my hips
and neck sore. Wearing it for a full shift
causes me to feel sharp pains in my
back for hours after I take it off and my
breasts feel sore from being squashed
for anything up to 12 hours. The only
good point about it is that it keeps my
hands warm in the winter.”

“We don’t need to be Barbified, just have the same gear as the men, but with an adjustment to allow a proper fit…”

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 09/01/2022 22:52

So, you can have female-specific hats that signal you out as female to drunken louts while patrolling the High Street at chucking out time. But not female-specific protection gear.

I remember a female officer being stabbed, possibly killed? And it turned out that she'd removed her vest because she couldn't wear it and perform the physical task of using the battering ram on a suspect's door.

Other female officers came forward to say it was quite usual for female officers to compromise their own safety by removing vests, in order to get the actual current job done.

CheeseMmmm · 09/01/2022 22:50

I do point out if really wtf. I do think that's important. I do it a fair bit in fact just remembered saw one on another thread by a poster who is long term and I generally agree with.

One of those where applying an external argument to topic of thread makes sense, forgetting to consider it across everything is woah nope.

Everyone's own judgement!

These two comments though while off topic/ not helpful. I understand why said and so ignore and avoid derail. I also know that one of them there are massive differences in meaning depending on experience and other things. Can discuss on another thread if wanted?

If the actual posters want to discuss then I'm sure they will do so.

VestofAbsurdity · 09/01/2022 22:48

I was just saying it really isn't just about a concern for dress codes, is it.

That is all I am concerned about on this thread, all the OP is referencing and the overwhelming majority of the posters on this thread, the point as has been made to you over and over and over again is the unfairness of allowing one particular officer carte blanche not to adhere to the rules every other officer has to, you know this, we know this.

Your attempts to obfuscate in order to ensure your favoured caste remain so favoured are transparent.

PoisonCrystal · 09/01/2022 22:47

@FatFucker It purely refers to individuals, not policemen or policewomen.

From a FOI response here www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/707933/response/1694743/attach/html/4/BCH20%20001%20Dress%20and%20Equipment%20Code%20and%20Standards%20Policy.pdf.html

BCH20/001 Dress and Equipment Code and Standards Policy

“ Make up and nail varnish

4.2.7
Individuals should keep make-up discreet or in connection with your religion/faith (e.g. the Bindi). Individuals in operational roles must ensure nails are kept short and any nail varnish must be neutral in colour. “

youvegottenminuteslynn · 09/01/2022 22:46

I was just saying it really isn't just about a concern for dress codes, is it.

For some of us, yes. This particular discussion was about concern for dress codes not being equally applicable to women and trans women as an example of how women are being afforded less rights and freedoms than natal males who are later trans women. Can you see how that is problematic and not 'just' about make up and nails, but about the wider discussion of women's treatment? It would be refreshing if you could try to understand that as you haven't seemed to try to and it's a really, really important issue.

Posts like that show there's more to it than that.

Women aren't hive mind. Mumsnet isn't hive mind. You are a woman and you are on mumsnet. You vehemently disagree with other women and mumsnetters, so you can see that for yourself. Using individuals who are saying something different to others engaging with you as a reason not to engage does nothing but stop the important discussion. You can ignore those who say things you see as inflammatory or goady and engage in good faith with posters genuinely posing questions like mine in this post.

I don't think you could call the above inflammatory, as im trying to encourage you to think critically and try to see people's issue with this.

It's not that I don't think in principle trans women shouldn't wear make up or painted nails at work. It's that in this job, it is blanket policy for women to not wear painted nails or heavy make up so allowing a trans woman to do so feels unfair. Not because of jealousy but because of equality.

And if a trans woman would like to be treated as a woman, it would make sense for them to adhere to the policy that women are required to within a particular job.

Can you see that at all?

Swipe left for the next trending thread